Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:14, 10 May 2009

<ref>

This user recognizes the importance of citing sources.

This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.

Subscribe · Feedback · Talk to us on Skype!

Tip of the Day

Tip of the moment... Avoid using neologisms Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary. Avoid using neologisms when creating articles on Misplaced Pages unless they are part of the subject being covered and need to be explained; in such a case, be sure to define the new words! Neologisms include words made up on the spot and these should never be used in a Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages relies on established English to explain its subjects. It is important that every word in Misplaced Pages can be understood by those who read it. This ensures that Misplaced Pages always conveys accessible and meaningful knowledge. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms   Become a Misplaced Pages tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Jimmy Wales

Template:Jimboquote

Martí : Thoughts/Pensamientos (1994)

• Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.

• Liberty the essence of life. Whatever is done without it is imperfect.

• Man loves liberty, even if he does not know that he loves it. He is driven by it and flees from where it does not exist.

• Perhaps the enemies of liberty are such only because they judge it by its loud voice. If they knew its charms, the dignity that accompanies it, how much a free man feels like a king, the perpetual inner light that is produced by decorous self-awareness and realization, perhaps there would be no greater friends of freedom than those who are its worst enemies.

• Freedoms, like privileges, prevail or are imperiled together You cannot harm or strive to achieve one without harming or furthering all.

• We are free, but not to be evil, not to be indifferent to human suffering, not to profit from the people, from the work created and sustained through their spirit of political association, while refusing to contribute to the political state that we profit from. We must say no once more. Man is not free to watch impassively the enslavement and dishonor of men, nor their struggles for liberty and honor.

• Socialist ideology, like so many others, has two main dangers. One stems from confused and incomplete readings of foreign texts, and the other from the arrogance and hidden rage of those who, in order to climb up in the world, pretend to be frantic defenders of the helpless so as to have shoulders on which to stand.

• The vote is the most effective and merciful instrument that man has devised to manage his affairs.

• Fortunately, there is a sane equilibrium in the character of nations, as there is in that of men. The force of passion is balanced by the force of interest. An insatiable appetite for glory leads to sacrifice and death, but innate instinct leads to self-preservation and life. A nation that neglects either of these forces perishes. They must be steered together, like a pair of carriage horses.

• Peoples are made of hate and of love, and more of hate than love. But love, like the sun that it is, sets afire and melts everything.

• The merit and strength of a people are measured by their enthusiasm for freedom when the only rewards from it are anguish and martyrdom, the blood and ashes of exile, the sorrow of a house driven by the waves, and the shame of a useless life that lacks the foundation and peace of mind needed to do one's share of the common task.

• We light the oven so that everyone may bake bread in it. If I survive, I will spend my whole life at the oven door seeing that no one is denied bread and, so as to give a lesson of charity, especially those who did not bring flour.

• It is necessary to make virtue fashionable.

• One just principle from the depths of a cave is more powerful than an army.

• Happiness exists on earth, and it is won through prudent exercise of reason, knowledge of the harmony of the universe, and constant practice of generosity. He who seeks it elsewhere will not find it for, having drunk from all the glasses of life, he will find satisfaction only in those.

• Just as he who gives his life to serve a great idea is admirable, he who avails himself of a great idea to serve his personal hopes of glory and power is abominable, even if he too risks his life. To give one's life is a right only when one gives it unselfishly.

• Talent is a gift that brings with it an obligation to serve the world, and not ourselves, for it is not of our making. To use for our exclusive benefit what is not ours is theft. Culture, which makes talent shine, is not completely ours either, nor can we place it solely at our disposal. Rather, it belongs mainly to our country, which gave it to us, and to humanity, from which we receive it as a birthright. A selfish man is a thief.

• He who could have been a torch and stoops to being a pair of jaws is a deserter.

• A child, from the time he can think, should think about all he sees, should suffer for all who cannot live with honesty, should work so that all men can be honest, and should be honest himself. A child who does not think about what happens around him and is content with living without wondering whether he lives honestly is like a man who lives from a scoundrel's work and is on the road to being a scoundrel.

• Every human being has within him an ideal man, just as every piece of marble contains in a rough state a statue as beautiful as the one that Praxiteles the Greek made of the god Apollo.

• It is the duty of man to raise up man. One is guilty of all abjection that one does not help to relieve. Only those who spread treachery, fire, and death out of hatred for the prosperity of others are undeserving of pity.

• There are men who live contented through they live without decorum. Others suffer as if in agony when they see around them people living without decorum. There must be a certain amount of decorum in the world, just as there must be a certain amount of light. When there are many men without decorum, there are always others who themselves possess the decorum of many men. These are the ones who rebel with terrible strength against those who rob nations of their liberty, which is to rob men of their decorum. Embodied in those men are thousands of men, a whole people, human dignity.

• Through a marvelous law of natural compensation, he who gives of himself grows, and he who turns inward and lives from small pleasures, is afraid to share them with others, and only thinks avariciously of cultivating his appetites loses his humanity and becomes loneliness itself. He carries in his breast all the dreariness of winter. He becomes in fact and appearance an insect.

• Man is not an image engraved on a silver dollar, with covetous eyes, licking lips and a diamond pin on a silver dickey. Man is a living duty, a depository of powers that he must not leave in a brute state. Man is a wing.

• A genuine man goes to the roots. To be a radical is no more than that: to go to the roots. He who does not see things in their depth should not call himself a radical.

• To busy oneself with what is futile when one can do something useful, to attend to what is simple when one has the mettle to attempt what is difficult, is to strip talent of its dignity. It is a sin not to do what one is capable of doing.

• Men of action, above all those whose actions are guided by love, live forever. Other famous men, those of much talk and few deeds, soon evaporate. Action is the dignity of greatness.

• There is happiness in duty, although it may not seem so. To fulfill one's duty elevates the soul to a state of constant sweetness. Love is the bond between men, the way to teach and the center of the world.

• In truth, men speak too much of danger. Let others be terrified by the natural and healthy risks of life! We shall not be frightened! Poison sumac grows in a hard-working man's field, the serpent hisses from its hidden den, and the owl's eye shines in the belfry, but the sun goes on lighting the sky, and truth continues marching across the earth unscathed.

• Like stones rolling down hills, fair ideas reach their objectives despite all obstacles and barriers. It may be possible to speed or hinder them, but impossible to stop them.

• The struggles waged by nations are weak only when they lack support in the hearts of their women. But when women are moved and lend help, when women, who are by nature calm and controlled, give encouragement and applause, when virtuous and knowledgeable women grace the endeavor with their sweet love, then it is invincible.

Signpost

Leave me message below

Another message on Npov

Luis, please keep in mind Misplaced Pages's policy of WP:Npov and WP:Undue. We are here to reflect the majority of reliable sources on a subject, not to 'rewrite'/revise the historical record of individuals or events from a partisan slant. Many of the edit wars you seem to become entangled in are centered around your desire to dramatically alter existing politically-related articles - either through large removals of material, or through inserting large amounts of material/rewriting many sentences with a heavily biased slant. When an editor objects to your actions which usually involve no talk page discussion or rationale, you simply revert them and ask that they address your large additions line by line, rather than you inserting them individually line by line. Moreover, tendentiously tagging an article can be disruptive, if you simply insert 'citation needed' tags throughout a paragraph or an entire page (especially in the lead) which per MOS are usually not supposed to be cited line by line. When it appears that you are inserting ‘citation needed tags’ as a way of saying “I disagree with this” rather than truly challenging the fact that the majority of sources reflect that view, it becomes another form of advancing a pov by attempting to undermine the credibility of an article, with whose tone you wish were more in line with your own views on the subject in question. I am aware that you may just delete this message per past discussions, but please consider taking these issues into consideration so that we can avoid further frustration from all involved parties, and avoid distracting editors from our mission of creating a reliable encyclopedia.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I can see that administrators have blocked you for similar reasons before.Luis Napoles (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, it is unfortunate that you choose to respond to my Wp:good faith and civil remarks with such a flippant dismissal. Yes I have been blocked in the past (especially in my early days of using Misplaced Pages before I really understood the editing policies) for edit warring and 3RR, the exact thing I am trying to prevent you from becoming entangled in. I realize and can empathize with the heated emotions that arise when entangled in a revert-war, which is why I believed I was providing you with helpful advice. It is now clear to me that you don't wish to receive any such advice, and thus I will not waste any more time attempting to discuss these matters with you. What is clear is that 95-100 % of your edits push/advocate a specific political agenda (and usually encompass pov language in doing so). Eventually this is going to lead to an array of problems for you if you can not temper your possibly well meaning enthusiasm for all things anti-Cuban govt. Resembling a one-man-anti-communist-Cuba-wrecking-crew, will only result in the majority of your additions eventually being removed per Wp:Npov. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a base for political advocacy irrespective of ones ideological persuasion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you did not realize that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If it does not have references, it's not an issue with the editor who tags it, it's an issue with material. You could help by adding the references.Luis Napoles (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I am not sure what specific instance you are referring to about me not "realizing", but I would add that my remarks to you are broad and in relation to a myriad of articles and edits you have conducted. If you are referring to the Batista article, I simply reverted your hasty removal of 1/3 of the article (something I see that you have even reported another editor for doing today). Some of the Batista info could be ref'd, other parts re-written, and other parts removed. But you threw out a large portion of it for not being ref'd, which is not consistent with your other edits on articles that also have very little to no refs (in which you don't tag and delete, based on whether you ideologically agree with the tone or message of the article) Such actions are transparent to any observer.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You should know that there is a major difference between removing citations and removing unreferenced claims. The first one, when done without good explanations, is seen as vandalism. The latter one, as Jimmy Wales has put it, should be done "aggressively". You can help by adding references. Luis Napoles (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I do "know the difference", what you seem not to realize is that if you only go about removing unref'd material of a particular political persuasion (within an article), while actively editing other articles and not likewise removing the unref'd material in those articles, then it appears as if you are pov-pushing through means of removal and tagging, rather than merely "looking out for the best interests of the Wiki project". For instance if you go to an article on Pinochet (as you did) and only remove the unref’d negative statements but not the positive ones, or add to an article about an imprisoned dissident whose stance you agree with but not take note of the unref’d statements within that same article ... then an inconsistency develops (which is my concern). You haven’t once removed an unref’d statement that said anything negative about those whom you obviously disagree with (pro Cuban govt, pro-communist/leftist etc) all you have done is remove unref’d material that was negative of Batista, Pinochet, Cuban dissidents etc - while removing unref’d positive material about Allende. Your Raison d'être is obvious, please don't pretend that it isn't ... as all edits and actions are recorded in a ‘virtual’ paper trail. You can help by limiting your overt bias.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I fully support removing all unreferenced claims. They should be removed as soon as they appear and I welcome you to help.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, you do realize that what you are calling "unreferenced claims" is every sentence that does not end with a numerical ref (despite the fact that maybe the ref on the preceding sentence refs both sentences) or that some information is considered "common knowledge" and not in need of a ref (especially in the lead, where over ref'ing is not proper mos.) For example, If I for instance took the last article you made an edit to Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, I could (under your theory) either remove or tag 4 of the sentences in this very short article (after the words “journalist”, “jail”, “Toledo”, and “white”). Now of course I would never Wp:tendentiously do such a thing, but that in effect is what you are saying should occur (and keep in mind this would be relevant to every article on Wiki). The results would be articles either tagged to the point of disrepair, or minimized to the bare necessity (until a ref can be located for every sentence, which is the universally understood goal, tag or no tag). The tags are there primarily for statements which go against the majority of sources, and make obviously questionable claims. Do you not see what I am saying?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.Luis Napoles (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, so you would agree with removing those 4 aforementioned sentences from that article, and all others like them? Why does it seem like you never specifically address the issues I am talking about, but rather deal in generalities?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, if something has no citation that enables verification, yes. Luis Napoles (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, so you mean to tell me that you believe THIS sort of tagging, is proper Wiki protocol ?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.Luis Napoles (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Luis, per WP:LEADCITE

"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

Thus, if the material is already in the article's body, and referenced, it can sometimes be redundant to cite in the lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

...and when it is not referenced anywhere, it should certainly not be there.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if it is not ref'd anywhere in the article that it should be ref'd in the lead (or the article itself), unless it is a general commonly accepted fact - (and even then it can be ref'd on a case by case basis if another editor questions the accuracy). However, most of the ref's I have seen you ask for (like most recently in the Che Guevara lead), are ref'd in the article body.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between referenced and what you call "most" are referenced.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of any article is a great place to request clarification or a reference for any material within an article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And templates are even more clear way to tag unreferenced parts.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that talk page warning templates are for the use of administrators ... not for editors upset at the preponderance of the evidence, and who wish to edit war.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Amaury Gutierrez

A tag has been placed on Amaury Gutierrez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Vianello (Talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death squad. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)